Well there is global, and then there are regular variables.

That's not what they mean, turefalcon - in "proper" programming it is possible to set a variable type depending on projected usage - like int (only round numbers), float (numbers with decimals), string (for words and such) and also different subtypes (how big the number can get - up to 255, or up to 32767 or 2 billion something), signed or unsigned, etc. In olden times this had a big effect on the memory usage. I don't think it matters that much nowadays, but it would be neat to know for sure.

Royalty free means that you don't have to pay a percentage (a royalty) for each use of the resource. How you may or may not use it is in the licence.

By that I mean - use physics properties to launch the bullet, not the bullet behaviour - mixing physics with anything else that moves is a super-bad idea. From my testing then it acts VERY predictably each time.

What do you mean by disappear? If that's at runtime then your events must be wrong. Do provide more information, we cannot see into your screen and guess what you are doing.

You must be doing something wrong - what do you mean "if i want the same looking object to be coppied i need to import it again" - does it look different when you copy and paste? The simplest way to make regular copies is just hold Ctrl and drag the original object.

I suspect that might be built in to prevent a situation where a bullet can be caught in an endless loop, like if it manages to bounce off something at a straight angle it could just bounce back and forth forever.

Don't quote me on that, however, it could also be a result of many different things.

At the same time - since you are using physics for the targets it would make sense to also use them for your projectile.

So I have been wondering - is it normal that local Shader coordinate space gets thrown out the window the moment transparency or another Shader comes into play? Say, I have a simple scaling Shader:

If one element is set to transparent it suddenly uses screen-space coordinates:

Which, obviously, breaks the effect, but that's nothing compared to several transparent elements:

Now they all live in screen-space and somehow manage to exist within each other's bounds.

I'd like to ask Ashley if this is supposed to be expected behaviour and if so, is there a way around it?

That actually looks really cool, he's certainly nailed the way outlines should work. Wonder if it can be ported to other systems.

Well done, seems like it could work really well for kids.

I felt that the 2nd level dragged on for a bit, though. Idea for an advanced level - adding time - the bubbles could slowly float up and if you miss them it's the same as picking a wrong answer.

You can fix this by manually adding a 1px transparent border to your images or extending the effect bounding box in the shader xml.

Thanks for the input, Animmaniac, but my question is more about inconsistent behaviour - as you can see in the animated gif - one time you get the effect, move and object away, then back the same amount and the effect is different, move it away again, then back and it's suddenly fragmented. And my images are 254x254 so on export they get the obligatory 1px transparent border (I also just made this image have the border in preview and it's the same).

Extending the bounding box for something like this usually makes things worse as then even more artefacts appear for overlapping objects (or you get unneeded elements on the other side). R0J0 observed it in his outline Shader (so he disabled bounding box extension) and I did in this one as well. Also, as said before for some reason adding any other Shader into the mix already sort-of extends the bounding box, even if it's not mentioned anywhere. If my inline Shader is the only one in the stack on a square that fills the texture it looks as it should - empty (since there's nothing to sample from the outside):

If I use it as the only Shader it works predictably, every time. So, perhaps something is happening with Shader stacking - hopefully it can be addressed.

This is how "High quality" has to look like? This doesn't make any sense to me, can you please explain.

It was exported as high quality Full screen and down scaling.

This should have popped up when you picked "High quality":

Guess you didn't follow the link.

Well, here's what I could gather so far:

Chrome: Glitches

Firefox: Glitches

Opera: Glitches

nw.js: Glitches

Safari: Shaders didn't work

IE11: Shaders didn't work